DOCSLIB.ORG

Wholefoods Pi Opp Re

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wholefoods Pi Opp Re Public Version IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 1:07-cv-01021 – PLF ) WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., ) PUBLIC VERSION ) and ) ) WILD OATS MARKETS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) JOINT REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. AND WILD OATS MARKETS, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Paul T. Denis (DC Bar No. 437040) Paul H. Friedman (DC Bar No. 290635) Jeffrey W. Brennan (DC Bar No. 447438) James A. Fishkin (DC Bar No. 478958) Michael Farber (DC Bar No. 449215) Rebecca Dick (DC Bar No. 463197) DECHERT LLP 1775 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3430 Facsimile: (202) 261-3333 Of Counsel: Alden L. Atkins (DC Bar No. 393922) Neil W. Imus (DC Bar No. 394544) Roberta Lang John D. Taurman (DC Bar No. 133942) Vice-President of Legal Affairs VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. and General Counsel The Willard Office Building Whole Foods Market, Inc. 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 550 Bowie Street Washington, DC 20004-1008 Austin, TX Telephone: (202) 639-6500 Facsimile: (202) 639-6604 Attorneys for Whole Foods Market, Inc. Public Version Clifford H. Aronson (DC Bar No. 335182) Thomas Pak (Pro Hac Vice) Matthew P. Hendrickson (Pro Hac Vice) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 caronson@skadden.com Gary A. MacDonald (DC Bar No. 418378) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7000 gmacdona@skadden.com Terrence J. Wallock (Pro Hac Vice) 2224 Pacific Dr. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Telephone: (949) 375-0683 Attorneys for Defendant Wild Oats Markets, Inc. July 25, 2007 Public Version TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................................2 I. THE FTC HAS FAILED TO PROVE A COHERENT PRODUCT MARKET................2 A. The FTC Has Not Offered the Types of Evidence That the Courts and Guidelines Have Used to Establish a Product Market....................................2 B. The FTC Cannot Prove a Product Market by Relying on Sales Lost by Wild Oats Stores to Whole Foods Stores.........................................................5 C. The Selective Quotation of the Parties’ Documents Does Not Substitute for the Analysis Required to Prove a Product Market...........................9 D. Economic Analysis Applied to the Evidence Shows that Premium Natural and Organic Supermarkets Are Not a Distinct Relevant Product Market..................................................................................................10 E. The FTC’s Alleged Product Market Is a Hodge Podge of Attributes That Does Not Meet the Requirements of a Product Market Definition..............13 II. THE FTC HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS......................18 III. THE FTC HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE MERGER WOULD HAVE ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS......................................................................19 A. The FTC’s Assertion that the Merger Is “Presumptively Unlawful” Is Based on Unproven Product and Geographic Markets....................................19 B. Statements by John Mackey Cannot and Do Not Prove that the Transaction Would Be Anticompetitive.............................................................20 C. The FTC Says that Whole Foods and Wild Oats Compete “Uniquely,” But Its Evidence Does Not Prove It....................................................................21 D. The FTC Has Not Shown that Prices Would Be Higher or that Quality Would Be Lower After the Merger....................................................................24 E. Store Closures Do Not Prove Anticompetitive Effects.......................................28 IV. THE FTC HAS FAILED TO DISPROVE THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF REPOSITIONING IN THE SUPERMARKET INDUSTRY....................................29 i Public Version V. THE FTC’S ARGUMENT THAT WILD OATS IS AN “AGGRESSIVE” COMPETITOR IS BASED ON A MISPLACED RELIANCE ON SELECTED WILD OATS DOCUMENTS AND THE ODAK TESTIMONY...................................31 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................35 ii Public Version TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Beatrice Foods Co. v. FTC, 540 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1976).........................................................13 Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962).................................................1, 2, 7, 13 California v. Sutter Health Sys., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2001)...................................19 FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004)............................................... passim FTC v. Cardinal Health, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 1998)................................................18 FTC v. Freeman Hosp., 69 F.3d 260 (8th Cir. 1995).................................................................19 FTC v. Libbey, Inc., 211 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2002).............................................................19 FTC v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997)...................................................... passim Liggett & Myers, Inc. v. FTC, 567 F.2d 1273 (4th Cir. 1977)....................................................13 In re Super Premium Ice Cream Distrib. Antitrust Litig., 691 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Cal. 1988), aff’d sub nom. Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 895 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990)..................................................................13 Thurman Indus. v. Pay ’N Pak Stores, Inc., 875 F.2d 1369, 1377 (9th Cir. 1989)..............................................................................14 United States v. Baker-Hughes, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C.), aff’d, 908 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .............................................................................21 United States v. Connecticut Nat’l Bank, 418 U.S. 656 (1974).................................................18 United States v. Consol. Foods Corp., 455 F. Supp. 108 (E.D. Pa. 1978)..................................................................................34 United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486 (1974)................................................34 United States v. Gillette Co., 828 F. Supp. 78 (D.D.C. 1993).......................................................4 United States v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 253 F. Supp. 129 (N.D. Cal.), aff’d, 385 U.S. 37 (1966)............................................................................13 iii Public Version United States v. Marine Bancorporation, Inc., 418 U.S. 602 (1974)............................................1 United States v. Oracle Corp., 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004)............................... passim United States v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. 321 (1963)................................................18 United States v. Sungard Data Systems, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2001).......................................................................2, 4, 13 Other Authorities 7 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law § 1506 (2d ed. 2003)..................................................................................9 William Blumenthal & David A. Cohen, Channels of Distribution as Merger “Markets”: Interpreting Staples and Cardinal, Antitrust Rep., Nov. 1998.....................................................13, 15 FTC/DOJ Commentary on the Horizontal Merger Guidelines (Mar. 2006)...................................................................................................2 FTC Statement of the Comm’n Concerning Federated Department Stores, Inc./The May Department Stores Co., FTC File No. 051-0111 (Aug. 2005)...................................................................................................14 FTC 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (rev. 1997)......................................................... passim Geoffrey A. Manne & E. Marcellus Williamson, Hot Docs vs. Cold Economics: The Use and Misuse of Business Documents in Antitrust Enforcement and Adjudication, 47 Ariz. L. Rev. 609 (2005).............................................................................................9 iv Public Version INTRODUCTION The brief of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is striking for what it does not show: · The FTC has not shown how customers, particularly on the margin, would behave in response to a small but significant nontransitory price increase (a “SSNIP”). Yet, the law and the FTC’s Merger Guidelines require an analysis of customer behavior to define the product market. · The FTC has not shown that prices are higher in “monopoly” markets compared to markets in which Whole Foods and Wild Oats compete. This is the fundamental question of merger analysis and was essential evidence in FTC v. Staples, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997), yet it is not answered. · The FTC has not shown how its product market definition—a hodge-podge of highly subjective attributes—can be applied in a principled way to determine which firms are in the alleged market. · The FTC has not shown which stores meet its criteria to be in a product market. It does not show which Whole Foods and Wild Oats stores have those attributes. Nor does it show that other stores
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Counsel: Alden L
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civ. No. 1:07-cv-01021-PLF ) WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., ) REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION ) And ) ) WILD OATS MARKETS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~) JOINT MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES OF WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., AND WILD OATS MARKETS, INC. IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Paul T. Denis (DC Bar No. 437040) Paul H. Friedman (DC Bar No. 290635) Jeffrey W. Brennan (DC Bar No. 447438) James A. Fishkin (DC Bar No. 478958) Michael Farber (DC Bar No. 449215) Rebecca Dick (DC Bar No. 463197) DECHERTLLP 1775 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3430 Facsimile: (202) 261-3333 Of Counsel: Alden L. Atkins (DC Bar No. 393922) Neil W. Imus (DC Bar No. 394544) Roberta Lang John D. Taurman (DC Bar No. 133942) Vice-President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. Whole Foods Market, Inc. The Willard Office Building 550 Bowie Street 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Austin, TX Washington, DC 20004-1008 Telephone (202) 639-6500 Facsimile (202) 639-6604 Attorneys for Whole Foods Market, Inc. Clifford H. Aronson (DC Bar No. 335182) Thomas Pak (Pro Hae Vice) Matthew P. Hendrickson (Pro Hae Vice) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &FLOMLLP Four Times Square NewYork,NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 caronson@skadden.com Gary A. MacDonald (DC Bar No. 418378) SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &FlomLLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7000 gmacdona@skadden.com Terrence J. Walleck (Pro Hae Vice) 2224 Pacific Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Court Rejects Ftc Request to Block Whole Foods — Wild Oats Supermarket Merger
    CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL COURT REJECTS FTC REQUEST TO BLOCK WHOLE FOODS — WILD OATS SUPERMARKET MERGER On August 16, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied the request of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) for a preliminary injunction to block the acquisition of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. by Whole Foods Market, Inc. Judge Paul Friedman’s detailed, 93-page opinion rejected the FTC’s fundamental argument against the merger: That it would lead to a virtual monopoly in a market for “premium natural and organic supermarkets” (“PNOS”) across the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the FTC’s motion for an injunction staying the transaction pending the FTC’s appeal, and the parties consummated the merger on August 27, 2007. Whole Foods is the largest operator of PNOS in the United States, having 194 stores. Wild Oats was the second largest PNOS operator in the United States, with 115 stores that were generally smaller in size and higher in price than Whole Foods stores. Both firms concentrated on selling natural and organic food items and emphasizing customer service, but both also carried a variety of non-natural foods items. As is often true in merger analysis, the pivotal question was how to define the relevant market affected by the merger. As Judge Friedman summarized the issue: In this case, if the relevant product market is, as the FTC alleges, a product market of ‘premium natural and organic supermarkets’ consisting only of the two defendants and two other non-national firms, there can be little doubt that the acquisition of the second largest firm in the market by the largest firm in the market will tend to harm competition in that market.
    [Show full text]
  • FTC V. Whole Foods Market (D.C. Cir.)
    PUBLIC COPY - SEALED MATERIAL DELETED ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED No. 07-5276 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., and WILD OATS MARKETS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civ. No. 07-cv-Ol021-PLF PROOF BRIEF FOR APPELLANT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JEFFREY SCHMIDT WILLIAM BLUMENTHAL Director General Counsel Bureau of Competition JOHN D. GRAUBERT KENNETH L. GLAZER Principal Deputy General Counsel Deputy Director JOHNF.DALY MICHAEL J. BLOOM Deputy General Counsel for Litigation Director of Litigation MARILYN E. KERST THOMAS J. LANG Attorney THOMAS H. BROCK Federal Trade Commission CATHARINE M. MOSCATELLI 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. MICHAEL A. FRANCHAK Washington, D.C. 20580 JOAN L. HElM Ph. (202) 326-2158 Attorneys Fax (202) 326-2477 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28(1)(1), Appellant Federal Trade Commission certifies as follows: (A) PARTIES FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (Plaintiff) WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. (Defendant) WILD OATS MARKETS, INC. (Defendant) APOLLO MANAGEMENT HOLDING LP (Intervenor) DELHAIZE AMERICA. INC. (Interested Party) H.E. BUTT GROCERY COMPANY (Intervenor) KROGER CO. (Intervenor) PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC. (Intervenor) SAFEWAY INC. (Intervenor) SUPERVALU INC (Intervenor) TRADER JOE'S COMPANY (Intervenor) TARGET CORPORATION (Movant) WAL-MART STORES, INC. (Intervenor) WINN-DIXIE STORES INC (Intervenor) WEGMANS FOOD MARKETS, INC. (Movant) AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA ORGANIZATION FOR COMPETITIVE MARKETS (B) RULING UNDER REVIEW Federal Trade Commission v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 502 F.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    United Natural Foods, Inc. ANNUAL REPORT [2004] Investment in the future a commitment to sustainable growth people • facilities • equipment • technology To be an Mission Statement enduring, To excel in the distribution of natural and organic foods and wellness products by fulfilling successful the highest standards for quality, consistency, product assortments, dependability, value-added and support services and integrity in our business profitable and personal relationships. To exceed the needs and expectations of all our stakeholders: our company. customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, communities, the environment and the planet. To our customers To create partnering relationships development, and by providing com- of trust, integrity, customer satisfaction petitive, merit based compensation and loyalty. To provide the widest and benefits which rewards their good selection of natural and organic prod- work and dedication. ucts of the highest quality, consistently high in-stock levels, dependable on- To our shareholders time deliveries and highly competitive To exceed the expectations of our pricing, which allow our retailers to shareholders by delivering outstanding compete successfully and prosper. performance and commendable returns on their investments. To our suppliers To build and sustain fair and honest relationships and be a trusted, To our communities To be an outstanding partner in the dependable distribution resource communities where we work, supported by innovative and effective supporting them economically, being
    [Show full text]
  • Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US
    US INDUSTRY (NAICS) REPORT 44511 Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US In the bag: Rising discretionary income is expected to support revenue growth Cecilia Fernandez | November 2020 IBISWorld.com +1-800-330-3772 info@IBISWorld.com Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US 44511 November 2020 Contents About This Industry...........................................5 Competitive Landscape...................................26 Industry Definition..........................................................5 Market Share Concentration....................................... 26 Major Players................................................................. 5 Key Success Factors................................................... 26 Main Activities................................................................5 Cost Structure Benchmarks........................................27 Supply Chain...................................................................6 Basis of Competition...................................................31 Similar Industries........................................................... 6 Barriers to Entry........................................................... 32 Related International Industries....................................6 Industry Globalization..................................................33 Industry at a Glance.......................................... 7 Major Companies............................................34 Executive Summary....................................................... 9 Major Players..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FBI File on Whole Foods Market, Inc
    FBI file on Whole Foods Market, Inc. Obtained (via FOIA) and posted by AltGov2 www.altgov2.org U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, D.C. 20535 November 30, 2018 MR. RUSS KICK POST OFFICE BOX 36914 TUCSON, AZ 85740 FOIPA Request No.: 1405742-000 Subject: Whole Foods Market Inc (1980 – Present) Dear Mr. Kick: The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5, United States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you will find check boxes under the appropriate statute headings which indicate the types of exemptions asserted to protect information which is exempt from disclosure. The appropriate exemptions are noted on the enclosed pages next to redacted information. In addition, a deleted page information sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely and identify which exemptions were applied. The checked exemptions boxes used to withhold information are further explained in the enclosed Explanation of Exemptions. Section 552 Section 552a (b)(1) (b)(7)(A) (d)(5) (b)(2) (b)(7)(B) (j)(2) (b)(3) (b)(7)(C) (k)(1) (b)(7)(D) (k)(2) (b)(7)(E) (k)(3) (b)(7)(F) (k)(4) (b)(8) (k)(5) (b)(4) (b)(5) (b)(9) (k)(6) (b)(6) (k)(7) 29 pages were reviewed and 29 pages are being released. Below you will also find additional informational paragraphs about your request. Where applicable, check boxes are used to provide you with more information about the processing of your request. Please read each item carefully. Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other Government Agency [OGA].
    [Show full text]
  • Corrected Brief for Appellee Whole Foods Market, Inc
    [Oral Argument Scheduled for April 23, 2008] PUBLIC COPY - PROTECTED INFORMATION REDACTED Case No. 07-5276 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellant, V. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CORRECTED BRIEF FOR APPELLEE WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. Of Counsel: Paul T. Denis Paul H. Friedman Jeffrey W. Brennan Roberta Lang James A. Fishkin Vice-President of Legal Affairs Michael D. Farber and General Counsel Nory Miller Whole Foods Market, Inc. Rebecca Dick 550 Bowie Street DECHERTLLP Austin, Texas 78703 1775 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3430 Facsimile: (202) 261-3333 March 18, 2008 Attorneys for Whole Foods Market, Inc. · . CERTIFICATE OF THE PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES · · The Parties on Appeal · Appellant . Appellees * · ·. Federal Trade Commission Whole Foods Market, Inc . 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 550 Bowie Street Washington, D.C! . 20580 Austin, Texas 78703 ' . *Wild Oats Markets, Inc~, 1821 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301, an appellee · when this appeal was filed, is now a wholly~owned s-µbsidiary of appellee Whole · · Foods Market, Inc. ... Amicion Appeal - Motion for Stay Pending Appeal . •, . ··. AIDerican Antitrust Institute. Organization for Competitive · 2929. Ellicott Street; Suite 1000 Markets Washington, D.C ~ 20008 1.620 lStreet, NW - Suite 200 · Washington, DC·20006 Consumer Federation of America P.O. Box 6486 · Lincoln, NE 68506 · Amici on Appeal - Merits . American Antitrust Institute* . Organic Trade Association* 2929 ElliCott Street, Suite 1000 POBox547 Washington, D.C. 20008 Greenfield MA .o1302 · .*Has filed amicus.brief o~ ·behalf of.
    [Show full text]
  • Card-Contingent Discounts As Sources of Customer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: an Exploratory Inquiry Erhard K
    The Journal of Applied Business Research Volume 19, Number 2 Card-Contingent Discounts As Sources Of Customer Satisfaction And Dissatisfaction: An Exploratory Inquiry Erhard K. Valentin, (Email: evalentin@weber.edu), Weber State University Anthony Allred, (Email: aallred@weber.edu), Weber State University Abstract The reported exploratory study was undertaken to illuminate the effects of card-contingent discounts (CCDs) on customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. CCDs are price reductions on certain items that are given only to customers who present a card issued by the seller. Results from our survey of 953 grocery store patrons indicate that shoppers tend to frame CCDs as price reductions to which they are entitled; denying discounts is judged unfair. Typical customers are content, rather than delighted, when CCDs are granted and are disappointed or annoyed when CCDs are withheld. CCDs, therefore, seem more likely to engender dissatisfaction than enhance satisfaction. 1.0 Introduction ompetition for customers is intense in most lines of retailing. Staples, the office supply chain, Wild Oats Markets, and Smith’s Food and Drug Centers are among the merchants that have tried using card-contingent C discounts (CCDs) to increase market share (Bell 1993; Wild Oats Markets 1999). CCDs are price reductions offered on certain items only to customers who present the requisite discount card, which is issued by the seller. Typically, customers apply for discount cards by filling out short forms that ask for the applicant’s name, address, and moderate amounts of innocuous additional information. No applicant is refused a discount card, and every applicant is entitled to CCDs immediately upon completing the application form.
    [Show full text]
  • EVAC CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS for Supermarkets
    EVAC CLEANTECH SOLUTIONS for supermarkets Vacuum collection Wastewater treatment Bvac® system Fresh water generation Evac – World leading expertise Design and engineering support dedicated to your project We offer custom product design and engineering solutions, plumbing design, and other engineering services for architectural, civil, and environmental engineering projects. We fully support your architecture and design teams throughout the design process to ensure the best possible results. Evac vacuum systems comply with the EN 12109 European standard for vacuum drainage systems inside buildings. Our global network of skilled plumbing partners and representatives are all trained and supported by Evac. We are constantly developing our network to ensure that when you’re looking for vacuum plumbing installation, you know you can rely on a local contractor with the Evac stamp of approval. When you’re looking for maintenance for your Evac systems our global network of local plumbing partners can provide you with reliable Advantages preventive maintenance and repair services. Evac can also offer full • Overnight or open store remodeling and renovations support and training to your existing • Simple design, planning, construction, and maintenance contractors and maintenance services • Preserve floor integrity – because we believe that a problem- free system is the best endorsement we can have. Together with our wide network of partners, we have been carrying out training programs for architects and designers, students, installers, and service companies. These programs have included university lectures, seminars, and lunch and learn sessions. Our operations are ISO 9001:2015 (Quality Management Systems), ISO 14001:2015 (Environmental Management Systems), and OHSAS 18001:2007 (Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems).
    [Show full text]
  • Ready to Take on U.S. RETAIL MARKET the No.1 Player in the U.K
    inside... The Pundit Looks At Tesco • OCEAN SPRAY’S LAWSUIT • Canadian Retailers • Tie-Ins • Refrigerated Juice • Pictures From Mexico Regional Profile: Chicago • Fruit Ripening • Latino Consumers • South African Citrus • Fresh Herbs • Organic Fruit • CHERRIES MANGOS • MELON MERCHANDISING • Stone Fruit • Portable Dried Fruit Snacks • Exotic Plants and Flowers MAY 2007 • VOL. 23 • NO. 5 • $9.90 MARKETING • MERCHANDISING • MANAGEMENT • PROCUREMENT TESCO Ready To Take On U.S. RETAIL MARKET The No.1 player in the U.K. retail world is set to launch a major U.S. venture. © 2006 Reader Service # 13 MAY 2007 • VOL. 23 • NO. 5 FEATURES 94 OCEAN SPRAY SUED BY LONGTIME ASSOCIATES . 32 Lawsuit alleges special deals for Costco, H.E. Butt at the expense of Sam’s Club, B.J.’s, and others. Cover photos courtesy of THE CANADIAN RETAIL ENVIRONMENT . 42 Fresh Produce Journal Responding to a diverse and demanding public reveals these supermarkets staying flexible and tuned-in to their customers. COVER STORY TIE-INS PROVIDE INNOVATIVE WAYS TO MOVE PRODUCE . 50 TESCO READY TO TAKE ON Consumers looking for novelty and convenience are U.S. RETAIL MARKET . 18 the target audience for a wide variety of add-on items. The No.1 player in the U.K. retail world is set to launch a major U.S. venture. INDUSTRY POLL: WHAT’S IN STORE FOR THE REFRIGERATED JUICE CATEGORY?. 54 Industry leaders discuss the future of this rapidly expanding category. COMMENTARY DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE PROMOTE THE INDUSTRY (PART 1) . 75 THE FRUITS OF THOUGHT A sampling of these state agencies shows them as powerful produce industry advocates.
    [Show full text]
  • Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US
    WWW.IBISWORLD.COM Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US April 2019 1 Shop smart: Increasing premium brand sales and healthy eating trends will spur growth This report was provided to Illinois SBDC (2133312863) by IBISWorld on 28 June 2019 in accordance with their license agreement with IBISWorld IBISWorld Industry Report 44511 Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US April 2019 Darshan Kalyani 2 About this Industry 18 International Trade 31 Whole Foods Market Inc. 2 Industry Definition 19 Business Locations 31 Wakefern Food Corporation 2 Main Activities 32 Walmart Inc. 2 Similar Industries 21 Competitive Landscape 3 Additional Resources 21 Market Share Concentration 33 Operating Conditions 21 Key Success Factors 33 Capital Intensity 4 Industry at a Glance 22 Cost Structure Benchmarks 34 Technology and Systems 23 Basis of Competition 35 Revenue Volatility 5 Industry Performance 24 Barriers to Entry 35 Regulation and Policy 5 Executive Summary 25 Industry Globalization 36 Industry Assistance 5 Key External Drivers 7 Current Performance 26 Major Companies 37 Key Statistics 9 Industry Outlook 26 The Kroger Co. 37 Industry Data 12 Industry Life Cycle 27 Albertsons Companies LLC 37 Annual Change 28 Publix Super Markets Inc. 37 Key Ratios 14 Products and Markets 29 Ahold Delhaize 38 Industry Financial Ratios 14 Supply Chain 30 HEB Grocery Company LP 14 Products and Services 30 Meijer Inc. 39 Jargon & Glossary 16 Demand Determinants 30 ALDI US 17 Major Markets 31 Trader Joe’s www.ibisworld.com | 1-800-330-3772 | info@ibisworld.com WWW.IBISWORLD.COM Supermarkets & Grocery Stores in the US April 2019 2 About this Industry Industry Definition The Supermarkets and Grocery Stores fresh and prepared meats, poultry and industry makes up the largest food retail seafood, canned and frozen foods, fresh channel in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Foods and Wild Oats Shopper Survey
    Results and Analysis of Whole Foods and Wild Oats Shopper Survey conducted for Whole Foods Market and Wild Oats Markets by the polling company™, inc. I. METHODOLOGY II. KEY FINDINGS III. GENERAL GROCERY HABITS IV. WHOLE FOODS SHOPPERS V. WILD OATS SHOPPERS VI. CROSS-SHOPPING WITHIN EIGHT CATEGORIES A. Produce B. Natural and Organic Foods C. Organic Produce D. Dairy Products E. Fresh Meat and Fish F. Prepared Foods G. Breads, Rolls, and Other Bakery Items H. Frozen Foods VII. IN CONCLUSION APPENDIX A: ZIP CODES SURVEYED APPENDIX B: CALL DISPOSITION REPORT APPENDIX C: MASTER SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX D: TOPLINE DATA I. METHODOLOGY The following data and analysis are based on telephone surveys of 1,600 adults aged 18 and older who reside in eight metropolitan areas across the United States and who qualified as either a “Frequent” or a “Cusp” shopper at Whole Foods Market (Whole Foods) and/or Wild Oats Markets (Wild Oats) as defined below. The surveys were conducted by the polling company™, inc. June 22-28, 2007. The zip codes to be surveyed within each of the eight metropolitan areas were provided to the polling company™, inc. prior to commencement of fielding. A full list of the zip codes surveyed within each area is attached as Appendix A to this report. These metropolitan areas represent geographically and demographically diverse cities of varying population sizes. Specifically, they included four “overlap” areas (where both Whole Foods and Wild Oats were present): Portland, Maine; Medford and Saugus, Massachusetts; Hinsdale, Illinois; and, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and Brentwood, California. In addition, two areas were selected in which Whole Foods was present but where Wild Oats was not present: Greater Washington, DC metro area, and West Bloomfield, Michigan.
    [Show full text]